We're all familiar with large, eclectic museums that are devoted to a wide variety of topics, such as the Smithsonian in Washington, DC. Then there are smaller museums devoted to a single topic or a limited number of related topics. I've been to a couple of those: one devoted to gemstones and my county has one devoted to our county's history.
But the one I read about this morning should be filed under "Now I've Heard Everything".
It seems as if Iceland boasts a museum devoted entirely to the penis, the Icelandic Phallological Museum. The museum currently houses 261 preserved members from 90 species and began in 1974 with a bull's penis the size of a riding crop.
The largest, from a sperm whale, is 70 kg (154 lb) and 1.7 meters (5.58 ft) long. The smallest, a hamster penis bone, is just 2 mm and must be viewed through a magnifying glass.
So far there are no human specimens, but four men, a German, an American, an Icelander and a Briton have promised to donate their organs after they die.
The Icelandic donor, a 93-year-old retired libertine thought having his penis in the collection might bring him eternal fame. Recently, however, he's been having second thoughts, as his penis has been shrinking as he's gotten older.
The museum opened in 1997 and has had visitors from all over the world, sixty percent of them being women.
Somehow, I'm not surprised.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Time to Give It Up
I don't think the Carpathia is going to come this time, Hillary.
It's time to give it up and put your support behind Obama for the sake of party unity.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
May Odds and Ends
I'm worn out from my "birthday visits" to several women, so today will be an odds and ends entry.
It's cool and overcast here today, but I don't think it will rain. Perfect weather for me, as bright sunlight bothers my eyes. It would be nice if the weather would stay this way all summer, but I'm not holding my breath.
____________________________
I've added a new commercial to my "love to hate" list. It's from Hardee's, who has a history of crappy commercials. I love their burgers, but I think they have some of the most obnoxious commercials going.
This latest commercial has two scruffy looking blue collar workers eating their burgers inside their vehicle. For much of the commercial all you hear is amplified slurping and smacking which. on its own, is enough to make me lose my appetite. It certainly doesn't make me want to run out to Hardee's for a burger.
Finally, one guy says to the other, who has just finished his burger, "Are you going to eat your cheese paper?" Blech. Totally fucking gross. And I ask you, what kind of man wants to lick the cheese off another man's burger wrapping? I'm getting nauseated just thinking about it.
_____________________________
On the Yahoo home page this morning, I noticed a box featuring very expensive cars. One was the Lamborghini Murcielago. Glancing at it quickly, I thought it was the Lamborghini Mucilage. You know -- that brownish-orange paste you used to use in art projects in elementary school.
I'm guessing the tires on this car really stick to the road!
______________________________
I've ranted about a TV commercial, now it's time to move on to radio. And the focus of the rant is poor enunciation.
In one ad, the announcer speaks of "assessories" one can get with a particular product. Is that stuff for your ass or is it stuff to assess the original product with?
In another spot, the announcer urged listeners to buy "bloons" supporting breast cancer research for Mother's Day. Bloons? How lazy can this mush-mouthed announcer be if she couldn't say the entire two syllable of balloons?
Thoughts?
It's cool and overcast here today, but I don't think it will rain. Perfect weather for me, as bright sunlight bothers my eyes. It would be nice if the weather would stay this way all summer, but I'm not holding my breath.
____________________________
I've added a new commercial to my "love to hate" list. It's from Hardee's, who has a history of crappy commercials. I love their burgers, but I think they have some of the most obnoxious commercials going.
This latest commercial has two scruffy looking blue collar workers eating their burgers inside their vehicle. For much of the commercial all you hear is amplified slurping and smacking which. on its own, is enough to make me lose my appetite. It certainly doesn't make me want to run out to Hardee's for a burger.
Finally, one guy says to the other, who has just finished his burger, "Are you going to eat your cheese paper?" Blech. Totally fucking gross. And I ask you, what kind of man wants to lick the cheese off another man's burger wrapping? I'm getting nauseated just thinking about it.
_____________________________
On the Yahoo home page this morning, I noticed a box featuring very expensive cars. One was the Lamborghini Murcielago. Glancing at it quickly, I thought it was the Lamborghini Mucilage. You know -- that brownish-orange paste you used to use in art projects in elementary school.
I'm guessing the tires on this car really stick to the road!
______________________________
I've ranted about a TV commercial, now it's time to move on to radio. And the focus of the rant is poor enunciation.
In one ad, the announcer speaks of "assessories" one can get with a particular product. Is that stuff for your ass or is it stuff to assess the original product with?
In another spot, the announcer urged listeners to buy "bloons" supporting breast cancer research for Mother's Day. Bloons? How lazy can this mush-mouthed announcer be if she couldn't say the entire two syllable of balloons?
Thoughts?
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Frustration at the Bookstore
I've not been having very good luck recently when it comes to shopping for books.
I went into the bookstore yesterday looking for a few specific books. One of the books was the second of a Star Trek trilogy and had been recently released on the 29th of April. I'd bought the first book of the trilogy in this store the day it was released, so I was surprised to see that they didn't have the book.
When I went to the front desk, they looked it up for me. They found the book on their database with a note saying that the store wouldn't be carrying that book.
WTF? Why on Earth would a bookstore carry the first book of a trilogy, then decide not to carry the other two. If they weren't going to carry all three, then there was no point in stocking the first one. And it's Star Trek; it's not as if the books won't sell.
I was also looking for the paperback release of another series of books, which again, they didn't have.
I ended up leaving the store empty handed and irritated.
My town has only one mega bookstore, in this case, Books A Million. I've noticed that they're carrying far fewer books than previously. The politics and current events section, for example has more books displayed with the front cover showing, rather than shelving them with the spines showing. The only reason to shelve in this manner is to make fewer books fill up the same amount of space.
At the same time, they've recently devoted an entire aisle on both sides to those Japanese longer-length comic books, which has taken space away from other books of a more serious nature. Catering to the lowest common denominator, yet again.
Books A Million has had a monopoly in our town for nearly ten years, as the next closest mega-bookstore is thirty miles away. Thankfully, this monopoly is about to come to an end, as a new Barnes and Noble store is currently under construction in my town. I can only hope that it will not follow the same stocking decisions as Books A Million and I'll be able to find the books I'm looking for without always having to order online.
On a related note, I went to buy a new pair of sneakers today, as I had a fifteen dollars off coupon for the store. I found the shoes I wanted, but none in my size, naturally. I'd checked online to see if that store had the style in my size before driving there, which the website assured me that it did. I guess I could order them online, but shoes are something I like to try on before I buy to make sure the fit is correct and that they're comfortable.
Thoughts?
I went into the bookstore yesterday looking for a few specific books. One of the books was the second of a Star Trek trilogy and had been recently released on the 29th of April. I'd bought the first book of the trilogy in this store the day it was released, so I was surprised to see that they didn't have the book.
When I went to the front desk, they looked it up for me. They found the book on their database with a note saying that the store wouldn't be carrying that book.
WTF? Why on Earth would a bookstore carry the first book of a trilogy, then decide not to carry the other two. If they weren't going to carry all three, then there was no point in stocking the first one. And it's Star Trek; it's not as if the books won't sell.
I was also looking for the paperback release of another series of books, which again, they didn't have.
I ended up leaving the store empty handed and irritated.
My town has only one mega bookstore, in this case, Books A Million. I've noticed that they're carrying far fewer books than previously. The politics and current events section, for example has more books displayed with the front cover showing, rather than shelving them with the spines showing. The only reason to shelve in this manner is to make fewer books fill up the same amount of space.
At the same time, they've recently devoted an entire aisle on both sides to those Japanese longer-length comic books, which has taken space away from other books of a more serious nature. Catering to the lowest common denominator, yet again.
Books A Million has had a monopoly in our town for nearly ten years, as the next closest mega-bookstore is thirty miles away. Thankfully, this monopoly is about to come to an end, as a new Barnes and Noble store is currently under construction in my town. I can only hope that it will not follow the same stocking decisions as Books A Million and I'll be able to find the books I'm looking for without always having to order online.
On a related note, I went to buy a new pair of sneakers today, as I had a fifteen dollars off coupon for the store. I found the shoes I wanted, but none in my size, naturally. I'd checked online to see if that store had the style in my size before driving there, which the website assured me that it did. I guess I could order them online, but shoes are something I like to try on before I buy to make sure the fit is correct and that they're comfortable.
Thoughts?
Monday, May 12, 2008
A Thoughtful Gesture
Yesterday, a regular reader of my blog, John Sherck, contacted me on IM to wish me a happy birthday.
We chatted for awhile about various things and he eventually commented about my blog entry that day. I'd said that I wished I could stop by the cemetery and leaves flowers on my mother's grave on Mother's Day. As he lives in the same city where my parents are buried, he offered to take a trip down there and leave some flowers on the grave for me. He added that he'd take some photos, so that I could have a "virtual visit to the cemetery".
I gave him directions to where the grave was located in this large cemetery, where the first graves date from the 17th century, hoping for the best. Before he signed off, he promised me he'd email me later about what had transpired, and said he'd send photos if he'd found the grave.
Hours later, when I got home from work, his email was waiting for me, with an account of how he found the grave, along with nine photos complete with descriptions.
I am quite touched by his kindness and I'm using this entry to thank him publicly for his thoughtfulness. Below is one of the nine photos he snapped.
Thanks, John.
We chatted for awhile about various things and he eventually commented about my blog entry that day. I'd said that I wished I could stop by the cemetery and leaves flowers on my mother's grave on Mother's Day. As he lives in the same city where my parents are buried, he offered to take a trip down there and leave some flowers on the grave for me. He added that he'd take some photos, so that I could have a "virtual visit to the cemetery".
I gave him directions to where the grave was located in this large cemetery, where the first graves date from the 17th century, hoping for the best. Before he signed off, he promised me he'd email me later about what had transpired, and said he'd send photos if he'd found the grave.
Hours later, when I got home from work, his email was waiting for me, with an account of how he found the grave, along with nine photos complete with descriptions.
I am quite touched by his kindness and I'm using this entry to thank him publicly for his thoughtfulness. Below is one of the nine photos he snapped.
Thanks, John.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Sharing Two Holidays on the Same Day
The dreaded day is here at last. My birthday. And it's also Mother's Day. The end result is that I'm bummed about the milestone birthday and I'm missing my mother, all at once.
She and I got to share my birthday and Mother's Day on the same day once or twice back when I was a kid. My mother would have been happy to let that day be all about me, but my Dad made sure that her day wasn't forgotten about, either. After all, on the day I was born, she became a mother (albeit for the third time).
Though my mother made the birthday cake from scratch for me as she did any other year, my father made the meal. And although my Dad usually got her a potted plant of some kind for her garden, he had me to present a dozen roses to her as well.
My memory is a bit unclear on this part, but think the Mother's Day gift presentations came first, before the candles on my cake were lit and my presents appeared.
And, as I remember, my mother would always feel a little blue on Mother's Day, missing her own mother who had died the same year I was born. But I think on the time or two we shared the day, she was able to keep those thoughts at bay.
If my mother wasn't buried nearly a thousand miles away from me, I'd have stopped by the cemetery and left her some flowers today. As it is, my memories will have to do.
Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there.
She and I got to share my birthday and Mother's Day on the same day once or twice back when I was a kid. My mother would have been happy to let that day be all about me, but my Dad made sure that her day wasn't forgotten about, either. After all, on the day I was born, she became a mother (albeit for the third time).
Though my mother made the birthday cake from scratch for me as she did any other year, my father made the meal. And although my Dad usually got her a potted plant of some kind for her garden, he had me to present a dozen roses to her as well.
My memory is a bit unclear on this part, but think the Mother's Day gift presentations came first, before the candles on my cake were lit and my presents appeared.
And, as I remember, my mother would always feel a little blue on Mother's Day, missing her own mother who had died the same year I was born. But I think on the time or two we shared the day, she was able to keep those thoughts at bay.
If my mother wasn't buried nearly a thousand miles away from me, I'd have stopped by the cemetery and left her some flowers today. As it is, my memories will have to do.
Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Thoughts on The Duggar Family and Polygyny
I read yesterday that the ultra-fertile Michelle Duggar is pregnant yet again with her 18th child. That's right, 18th. Feel free to shudder now. The Duggars are believers of the "Quiverfull" philosophy, where they believe that it's up to God how many children they should have.
As I sat there yesterday contemplating on how she and her horny, but clueless husband even manage to find the time, privacy, and energy to do the horizontal bop in a house bursting with 17 children, my thoughts drifted back to the recent raid on the FLDS ranch, then to the idea of polygyny in general. I couldn't help but make a few comparisons.
Before I proceed further, let me make it clear that my remarks about polygyny apply to the concept in general and where it is practiced between fully consenting adults and does not include the forced marriages of underage girls to old men.
In ancient times, polygyny, one man with multiple wives, often occurred in areas where population growth was desired and/or needed, such as in agricultural societies where many hands were needed to do the necessary work, and where women outnumbered men.
This is because polygyny is a much more efficient system than monogamy if the goal is to produce large amounts of children. One woman can produce only so many children regardless of the form her marriage takes, but one man can easily sire hundreds of children with multiple women.
Compared to the most fertile monogamous women, such as Michelle Duggar, a polygynous male can sire the same 18 children with, perhaps, six wives, with each woman bearing only three children each, which has to much easier on each woman's health than one woman bearing all 18. Plus each woman has five "sister wives" to help out with the child care.
Polyandry, one woman with multiple husbands, is suited well for societies where population growth needs to be halted and where men outnumber women. Polyandry limits population growth, as several men are sharing the limited reproductive capacities of one woman. Today's China is a society that would be ideally suited for polyandry, as China both desires to curb its rampant overpopulation and currently has a surplus of 30 million males.
Monogamy seems to split the difference between polygyny and polyandry. It limits the reproductive capacities of men compared to polygyny, but not as much as polyandry would. As a reproductive strategy for women, there are no inherent differences for women, especially in societies that do not need or encourage large families, as she can bear the same amount of children, regardless if she has one or multiple husbands.
But getting back to the original point of this entry, in a society that desires large families, the practical reality is much harder on monogamous women than polygynous ones (again making the disclaimer that I'm talking about polygyny between consenting adults only). It's harder on their bodies, their energy, and their time.
However, for most of us, this is a moot point, as very few people today desire such large families, nor does the world need that much population growth. And many people today desire to have no children at all and/or no wish to enter into any form of marriage. People are, or should be, able to choose whichever relationship form suits them based on personal criteria unrelated to reproductive strategy.
But I still can't help but feel sorry for Michelle Duggar, who probably hasn't had a full night's rest in 20 years.
Thoughts?
As I sat there yesterday contemplating on how she and her horny, but clueless husband even manage to find the time, privacy, and energy to do the horizontal bop in a house bursting with 17 children, my thoughts drifted back to the recent raid on the FLDS ranch, then to the idea of polygyny in general. I couldn't help but make a few comparisons.
Before I proceed further, let me make it clear that my remarks about polygyny apply to the concept in general and where it is practiced between fully consenting adults and does not include the forced marriages of underage girls to old men.
In ancient times, polygyny, one man with multiple wives, often occurred in areas where population growth was desired and/or needed, such as in agricultural societies where many hands were needed to do the necessary work, and where women outnumbered men.
This is because polygyny is a much more efficient system than monogamy if the goal is to produce large amounts of children. One woman can produce only so many children regardless of the form her marriage takes, but one man can easily sire hundreds of children with multiple women.
Compared to the most fertile monogamous women, such as Michelle Duggar, a polygynous male can sire the same 18 children with, perhaps, six wives, with each woman bearing only three children each, which has to much easier on each woman's health than one woman bearing all 18. Plus each woman has five "sister wives" to help out with the child care.
Polyandry, one woman with multiple husbands, is suited well for societies where population growth needs to be halted and where men outnumber women. Polyandry limits population growth, as several men are sharing the limited reproductive capacities of one woman. Today's China is a society that would be ideally suited for polyandry, as China both desires to curb its rampant overpopulation and currently has a surplus of 30 million males.
Monogamy seems to split the difference between polygyny and polyandry. It limits the reproductive capacities of men compared to polygyny, but not as much as polyandry would. As a reproductive strategy for women, there are no inherent differences for women, especially in societies that do not need or encourage large families, as she can bear the same amount of children, regardless if she has one or multiple husbands.
But getting back to the original point of this entry, in a society that desires large families, the practical reality is much harder on monogamous women than polygynous ones (again making the disclaimer that I'm talking about polygyny between consenting adults only). It's harder on their bodies, their energy, and their time.
However, for most of us, this is a moot point, as very few people today desire such large families, nor does the world need that much population growth. And many people today desire to have no children at all and/or no wish to enter into any form of marriage. People are, or should be, able to choose whichever relationship form suits them based on personal criteria unrelated to reproductive strategy.
But I still can't help but feel sorry for Michelle Duggar, who probably hasn't had a full night's rest in 20 years.
Thoughts?
Friday, May 9, 2008
Law Enforcement's Role Regarding Polygynous Religious Communes
Yet again, Alternet has provided me with blogging fodder for today's entry. Their question of the day that one writer addressed in an article was:
My comment to this article was:
Children should be protected from every sort of abuse. This includes enforcing laws against the forced marriages of underage girls to much older men. The last time I checked, such laws included young girls being forced into monogamous marriages with much older men, as well as the polygynous form of polygamy practiced by the FLDS.
In other words, the crime is the forced marriage and subsequent statutory rape of an underage child, not the form the marriage takes, which should be irrelevant.
If the FLDS practiced polygyny between fully consenting adults, I'd say to leave them alone, as I don't think it's the government's place to mandate what form a marriage should take, but only to assure that whatever form a marriage takes, that it's between fully consenting adults.
The welfare of children and the forms a marriage takes are two separate issues. Strictly enforce the former and disregard the latter.
Thoughts?
How Should States Deal with Polygamous Sects?
My comment to this article was:
Children should be protected from every sort of abuse. This includes enforcing laws against the forced marriages of underage girls to much older men. The last time I checked, such laws included young girls being forced into monogamous marriages with much older men, as well as the polygynous form of polygamy practiced by the FLDS.
In other words, the crime is the forced marriage and subsequent statutory rape of an underage child, not the form the marriage takes, which should be irrelevant.
If the FLDS practiced polygyny between fully consenting adults, I'd say to leave them alone, as I don't think it's the government's place to mandate what form a marriage should take, but only to assure that whatever form a marriage takes, that it's between fully consenting adults.
The welfare of children and the forms a marriage takes are two separate issues. Strictly enforce the former and disregard the latter.
Thoughts?
Thursday, May 8, 2008
The Nature of Cheating
For the purposes of this entry, I will address the concept of cheating as the term is commonly used in reference to personal relationships, rather than that of breaking rules in regards to doing various types of work.
I've had many people refer to my lifestyle of intentional nonmonogamy as "cheating". On the other hand, I've had several married men who approve of my lifestyle and who are engaging in extramarital sex without their wives' knowledge tell me that they are "just like me".
Wrong on both counts. I am unmarried. I have not taken vows that promise sexual exclusivity to any woman. I remain unmarried so I can engage in the life I have chosen openly without any conflict of interest. That is not cheating.
If I ever chose to marry, I would not promise fidelity, nor would I expect any woman to do so. It would be what's known as an "open marriage". This also would not be cheating, as she and I would have agreed to different rules. One must agree to certain rules in order to be bound by them; the mere fact that most people agree to such rules does not automatically bind one to them, if one has openly declared to live by different rules.
Married men who engage in extramarital sex clandestinely without their wives' knowledge or approval are not "just like me" at all. They have not openly owned their non-monogamous natures and they have vowed to keep the traditional rules of marital fidelity. They want it both ways and are playing both ends against the middle. They want the convenience of a wife and domesticity and also the sexual freedom I enjoy, without having to admit to it honestly. They are cheaters. To be honest, they should either live up to what they agreed to or openly try to re-negotiate the terms of their marriages.
Thoughts?
I've had many people refer to my lifestyle of intentional nonmonogamy as "cheating". On the other hand, I've had several married men who approve of my lifestyle and who are engaging in extramarital sex without their wives' knowledge tell me that they are "just like me".
Wrong on both counts. I am unmarried. I have not taken vows that promise sexual exclusivity to any woman. I remain unmarried so I can engage in the life I have chosen openly without any conflict of interest. That is not cheating.
If I ever chose to marry, I would not promise fidelity, nor would I expect any woman to do so. It would be what's known as an "open marriage". This also would not be cheating, as she and I would have agreed to different rules. One must agree to certain rules in order to be bound by them; the mere fact that most people agree to such rules does not automatically bind one to them, if one has openly declared to live by different rules.
Married men who engage in extramarital sex clandestinely without their wives' knowledge or approval are not "just like me" at all. They have not openly owned their non-monogamous natures and they have vowed to keep the traditional rules of marital fidelity. They want it both ways and are playing both ends against the middle. They want the convenience of a wife and domesticity and also the sexual freedom I enjoy, without having to admit to it honestly. They are cheaters. To be honest, they should either live up to what they agreed to or openly try to re-negotiate the terms of their marriages.
Thoughts?
One Photo, Several Interpretations
I'm wondering exactly what this is. A fucking competition? A realllly progressive sex education class? An orgy?
At any rate, whatever it is, I think it's hilarious that all these couples are lined up in precise rows like a school classroom or an assembly line.
Your thoughts?
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Earworms in Commercials
There are a few current commercials whose jingles have turned into earworms for me. That is, the tunes tend to replay endlessly in my head.
The first is a commercial for Sears' appliances. There's not much to the jingle, except them singing, "Well, all right!" and "Ooh Hoo" in an endless loop. Nevertheless, it's catchy and it's stuck in my head.
Another commercial is for K9 Advantix insect treatment for dogs. It has a dog singing a silly tune:
There ain't no bugs on me
There ain't no bugs on me
There may be bugs on some of you mugs
But there ain't no bugs on me
Yeah, there may be bugs on some of you mugs
But there ain't no bugs on me
It's silly, but I find myself singing the damn song sometimes when I'm driving down the road.
The last commercial is for The Money Store. I get a kick out of this commercial mainly for the visuals that go with the lyrics. One verse goes:
On title loans
The first month's free
And the repo man
Ain't gettin' your keys
During this part of the jingle, it shows a guy with messy hair wearing dirty clothes, shifting his bulging eyes back and forth, while he's sniffing and holding out his hand. I'd never do business with one of these places and the music is cheesy, so I guess it's the ridiculous looking repo man that makes the tune stick in my head.
Are there any commercials you like in spite of, or maybe because of, how stupid they are?
The first is a commercial for Sears' appliances. There's not much to the jingle, except them singing, "Well, all right!" and "Ooh Hoo" in an endless loop. Nevertheless, it's catchy and it's stuck in my head.
Another commercial is for K9 Advantix insect treatment for dogs. It has a dog singing a silly tune:
There ain't no bugs on me
There ain't no bugs on me
There may be bugs on some of you mugs
But there ain't no bugs on me
Yeah, there may be bugs on some of you mugs
But there ain't no bugs on me
It's silly, but I find myself singing the damn song sometimes when I'm driving down the road.
The last commercial is for The Money Store. I get a kick out of this commercial mainly for the visuals that go with the lyrics. One verse goes:
On title loans
The first month's free
And the repo man
Ain't gettin' your keys
During this part of the jingle, it shows a guy with messy hair wearing dirty clothes, shifting his bulging eyes back and forth, while he's sniffing and holding out his hand. I'd never do business with one of these places and the music is cheesy, so I guess it's the ridiculous looking repo man that makes the tune stick in my head.
Are there any commercials you like in spite of, or maybe because of, how stupid they are?
Dreading the Date
I'm in the home stretch -- I'm living the last week of my life in my forties. I've been down in the dumps about turning fifty since the beginning of the year.
Turning thirty didn't bother me, nor did turning forty. But fifty is different. It's either the last act of middle age or it's the prologue to old age.
Last week, I was sent an AARP membership package, though I'd not requested one. I'm not fucking ready for this shit! I threw the envelope into the trash and hoped that no one saw the mailman put it in my box with my name on it.
I'm not ready for cardigan sweaters, polyester sansabelt pants...errr trousers...up to my armpits, or velcro-fastening Hush Puppies. Nor am I ready for a light blue or light brown Buick Century. Ditto to senior citizen discounts. And I'm DAMN SURE not yet needing Viagra. Hell, I still get that amazed feeling that I'm a grown-up already from time to time.
I've slowed down some in my sex life since my early 20s, to be sure, but it's not because of a lack of virility. And my sex life is still a hell of a lot more busy than most men twenty years younger than me. But I must admit that since the beginning of the year, I've engaged in a lot more random hookups than I'd been doing in the few previous years. I don't know, I guess I'm reassuring myself that my virility and desirability to the opposite sex isn't about to go down the tubes.
But, still, the first time I hook up for a one night stand after my birthday, I don't think I'll be able to tell them that I'm fifty. It's only a year, but forty-nine sounds a lot younger than fifty for some odd reason.
For those of you who have already passed this milestone or will soon face it, how does/did it make you feel?
Turning thirty didn't bother me, nor did turning forty. But fifty is different. It's either the last act of middle age or it's the prologue to old age.
Last week, I was sent an AARP membership package, though I'd not requested one. I'm not fucking ready for this shit! I threw the envelope into the trash and hoped that no one saw the mailman put it in my box with my name on it.
I'm not ready for cardigan sweaters, polyester sansabelt pants...errr trousers...up to my armpits, or velcro-fastening Hush Puppies. Nor am I ready for a light blue or light brown Buick Century. Ditto to senior citizen discounts. And I'm DAMN SURE not yet needing Viagra. Hell, I still get that amazed feeling that I'm a grown-up already from time to time.
I've slowed down some in my sex life since my early 20s, to be sure, but it's not because of a lack of virility. And my sex life is still a hell of a lot more busy than most men twenty years younger than me. But I must admit that since the beginning of the year, I've engaged in a lot more random hookups than I'd been doing in the few previous years. I don't know, I guess I'm reassuring myself that my virility and desirability to the opposite sex isn't about to go down the tubes.
But, still, the first time I hook up for a one night stand after my birthday, I don't think I'll be able to tell them that I'm fifty. It's only a year, but forty-nine sounds a lot younger than fifty for some odd reason.
For those of you who have already passed this milestone or will soon face it, how does/did it make you feel?
Saturday, May 3, 2008
More Wacky Dreams
Following is an account of some of my more recent dreams:
In the first dream I was at Wal Mart just before closing time. I bought an item and left the store through the lawn and garden area. The parking lot was completely empty when I came out. I got into my car and started driving away when I noticed several tornadoes approaching from several different directions. They were skinny, ropey-looking tornadoes.
I drove back to where I came out of Wal Mart, parking my car in a little open shed near the employee's entrance door. I banged on the door to be let back in, telling them there were tornadoes on the way.
They let me in and I followed them to a long, narrow corridor made out of cinder blocks to wait out the storm. At the end of the corridor was a small window with opaque, bubbled glass, like some people have in their bathrooms. I looked out the window and saw a tornado funnel waiting there, deciding which way to go. It came through the window and wall without destroying it, then passed harmlessly down the hall before heading back out into the parking lot.
___________________
In the next dream, I was running away from Hitler and his men before they killed everyone in the room. I ran outside a college building of some sort, across a large lawn, then across the street, then down a slight incline in a meadow that led to the edge of a river. The river's edge was lined with willow trees. I had someone with me, but it wasn't clear who it was. I was suddenly aware that Hitler and his henchmen were on our trail, but suddenly it wasn't Hitler anymore; he'd turned into Voldemort.
___________________
In the next dream, I was working at the police department and I was told I had to change shifts to temporarily cover the job of a dispatcher who was on leave. I told them I didn't know how to do that job, but they waved away my concerns.
When I arrived to do this job, I went into a room like a radio station control booth. I didn't know what to do, pushing buttons randomly, but somehow, I managed to get through the shift.
____________________
In yet another dream, I was taking a nap in my brother's room in the houseI lived in when I was a teenager. I woke up and went in to where my mother was taking a nap.
I was dismayed to see she'd gotten tattoos on one hand and wrist, with another tattoo extending up her forearm. The tattoos were pink and lime green and of a haphazard pattern with diamond-shaped latticework on the upper forearm. I asked her why she would do such a thing and her response to me was a defensive one.
_____________________
I dreamed I got my job back at the police department and as the dream began, I was walking down the sidewalk across from the parking lot on my first day back. The entrance, unlike in real life, was in a recessed area, looking much like a garage with no door, except that the floor was tiled. Once I stepped in, the entrance doors themselves were in a recessed alcove to the left.
There was a police car inside the garage-like area, facing the double glass doors. It was a tight fit because this area wasn't as large as a real garage and the car was facing sideways instead of straight in.
The driver's window was down and there were several red-and-blue bound law books resting on the window's "sill".
The car drove through the double doors and the law books fell out onto the ground. I went to pick the books up, then I went through the doors to find a long narrow room that had several desks and office personnel jammed up against the right wall in a row. At the top left of the room was a single door, which the car had also driven through. Inside the next room was the detectives' "bullpen".
The dream faded after this.
_____________________
In the last dream, I was facing the wrong way on an interstate highway's shoulder. I was on my way to deliver a pizza, but I'd gotten lost and ended up stuck on the highway.
I got out of the car to walk up a ways to see if there was somewhere to turn around to get headed in the right direction.
A highway patrol car pulled up beside me and I leaned in the passenger window and said, "Hey, buddy." I immediately realized my mistake, as it was a female trooper, wearing her red hair in two pigtails. She decided to help me and not give me a ticket because she found me attractive.
She told me that I could back the car to the next exit; that it wasn't too far. I got in the car and backed a slight distance when I saw a break in the median. I decided to simply dash across that , where I merged with traffic that was heading in the same direction I was pointed.
_______________________
Have any of you had an interesting dreams lately?
In the first dream I was at Wal Mart just before closing time. I bought an item and left the store through the lawn and garden area. The parking lot was completely empty when I came out. I got into my car and started driving away when I noticed several tornadoes approaching from several different directions. They were skinny, ropey-looking tornadoes.
I drove back to where I came out of Wal Mart, parking my car in a little open shed near the employee's entrance door. I banged on the door to be let back in, telling them there were tornadoes on the way.
They let me in and I followed them to a long, narrow corridor made out of cinder blocks to wait out the storm. At the end of the corridor was a small window with opaque, bubbled glass, like some people have in their bathrooms. I looked out the window and saw a tornado funnel waiting there, deciding which way to go. It came through the window and wall without destroying it, then passed harmlessly down the hall before heading back out into the parking lot.
___________________
In the next dream, I was running away from Hitler and his men before they killed everyone in the room. I ran outside a college building of some sort, across a large lawn, then across the street, then down a slight incline in a meadow that led to the edge of a river. The river's edge was lined with willow trees. I had someone with me, but it wasn't clear who it was. I was suddenly aware that Hitler and his henchmen were on our trail, but suddenly it wasn't Hitler anymore; he'd turned into Voldemort.
___________________
In the next dream, I was working at the police department and I was told I had to change shifts to temporarily cover the job of a dispatcher who was on leave. I told them I didn't know how to do that job, but they waved away my concerns.
When I arrived to do this job, I went into a room like a radio station control booth. I didn't know what to do, pushing buttons randomly, but somehow, I managed to get through the shift.
____________________
In yet another dream, I was taking a nap in my brother's room in the houseI lived in when I was a teenager. I woke up and went in to where my mother was taking a nap.
I was dismayed to see she'd gotten tattoos on one hand and wrist, with another tattoo extending up her forearm. The tattoos were pink and lime green and of a haphazard pattern with diamond-shaped latticework on the upper forearm. I asked her why she would do such a thing and her response to me was a defensive one.
_____________________
I dreamed I got my job back at the police department and as the dream began, I was walking down the sidewalk across from the parking lot on my first day back. The entrance, unlike in real life, was in a recessed area, looking much like a garage with no door, except that the floor was tiled. Once I stepped in, the entrance doors themselves were in a recessed alcove to the left.
There was a police car inside the garage-like area, facing the double glass doors. It was a tight fit because this area wasn't as large as a real garage and the car was facing sideways instead of straight in.
The driver's window was down and there were several red-and-blue bound law books resting on the window's "sill".
The car drove through the double doors and the law books fell out onto the ground. I went to pick the books up, then I went through the doors to find a long narrow room that had several desks and office personnel jammed up against the right wall in a row. At the top left of the room was a single door, which the car had also driven through. Inside the next room was the detectives' "bullpen".
The dream faded after this.
_____________________
In the last dream, I was facing the wrong way on an interstate highway's shoulder. I was on my way to deliver a pizza, but I'd gotten lost and ended up stuck on the highway.
I got out of the car to walk up a ways to see if there was somewhere to turn around to get headed in the right direction.
A highway patrol car pulled up beside me and I leaned in the passenger window and said, "Hey, buddy." I immediately realized my mistake, as it was a female trooper, wearing her red hair in two pigtails. She decided to help me and not give me a ticket because she found me attractive.
She told me that I could back the car to the next exit; that it wasn't too far. I got in the car and backed a slight distance when I saw a break in the median. I decided to simply dash across that , where I merged with traffic that was heading in the same direction I was pointed.
_______________________
Have any of you had an interesting dreams lately?
Friday, May 2, 2008
Don't Bother Us With Facts, We Have An Image To Maintain!
Once again, I've read something that shows just how insanely absurd some of our laws can be.
Last week, the Kentucky Supreme Court told a man he could no longer press the claim of paternity of his son, even though he has the incontrovertible proof of a DNA test that indicates that he is indeed the child's biological father.
Why, might you ask?
It's very simple. The child's mother was married to another man at the time of the conception and has remained married to that man throughout. The court considers holding up the image of what our society believes a marriage should be to be more important than the truth. They have decreed that in the interests of the institution of marriage, that a lie must take precedence over the truth.
Don't bother them with facts; they've got an image to maintain in Kentucky!
"As long as marriage is on the books, it must mean something," wrote Justice Bill Cunningham.
Really? Is he saying that it should mean more than the truth? I'd always thought that the law was about upholding the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be to a society's ideals.
"We are in need of a bold declaration that the marriage circle, even one with an errant partner, will be invaded at one's own legal risk," he added. "While the legal status of marriage in this early 21st century appears to be on life support, it is not dead."
Marriage must really be in critical condition if he thinks the only way to support it is by perpetuating a lie, i.e., a "legal fiction".
But Kentucky's ruling is firmly grounded in legal history. The idea of "marital presumption" has barred attacks on the "legitimacy" of children for centuries. Courts have long held that allegations of fatherhood by third parties can only disrupt the family, confuse or embarrass the child, and unsettle the social order.
What the ruling ignored, however, is that these laws are obsolete in the face of modern technology, as in the instance of DNA tests, that can absolutely prove paternity. When such laws were adopted, there was no way to establish paternity with any certainty, thus these laws made better sense at the time.
Justice Lisabeth Hughes Abramson in a dissent attacking the majority's notion that the boy will be better off not knowing the truth about his parentage said, "Our world is full of inconvenient truths. We accomplish nothing for families, the broader community and our justice system when we deny those truths."
The truth is better than a lie, and the earlier the child learns the truth, the earlier he can adjust to it. I can't imagine it will be a happy moment for the boy when he inevitably finds out the truth as an adult and discovers he's been lied to all those years. His biological father isn't seeking custody or to deny him a relationship with his stepfather; he just wants to know his son, be a part of his life, and for the truth of his paternity to be formally acknowledged.
For laws to be respected and to have any relevance, they must keep pace with current realities. A law becomes obsolete and maladaptive when it is applied to circumstances that could not have existed at the time the law was enacted. To insist upon enforcing obsolete laws, even when they deny truth and perpetuate lies does not reflect the intentions of those who enacted the law with the information they had to work with at the time. Rather, it makes a mockery of the law.
Thoughts?
Last week, the Kentucky Supreme Court told a man he could no longer press the claim of paternity of his son, even though he has the incontrovertible proof of a DNA test that indicates that he is indeed the child's biological father.
Why, might you ask?
It's very simple. The child's mother was married to another man at the time of the conception and has remained married to that man throughout. The court considers holding up the image of what our society believes a marriage should be to be more important than the truth. They have decreed that in the interests of the institution of marriage, that a lie must take precedence over the truth.
Don't bother them with facts; they've got an image to maintain in Kentucky!
"As long as marriage is on the books, it must mean something," wrote Justice Bill Cunningham.
Really? Is he saying that it should mean more than the truth? I'd always thought that the law was about upholding the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be to a society's ideals.
"We are in need of a bold declaration that the marriage circle, even one with an errant partner, will be invaded at one's own legal risk," he added. "While the legal status of marriage in this early 21st century appears to be on life support, it is not dead."
Marriage must really be in critical condition if he thinks the only way to support it is by perpetuating a lie, i.e., a "legal fiction".
But Kentucky's ruling is firmly grounded in legal history. The idea of "marital presumption" has barred attacks on the "legitimacy" of children for centuries. Courts have long held that allegations of fatherhood by third parties can only disrupt the family, confuse or embarrass the child, and unsettle the social order.
What the ruling ignored, however, is that these laws are obsolete in the face of modern technology, as in the instance of DNA tests, that can absolutely prove paternity. When such laws were adopted, there was no way to establish paternity with any certainty, thus these laws made better sense at the time.
Justice Lisabeth Hughes Abramson in a dissent attacking the majority's notion that the boy will be better off not knowing the truth about his parentage said, "Our world is full of inconvenient truths. We accomplish nothing for families, the broader community and our justice system when we deny those truths."
The truth is better than a lie, and the earlier the child learns the truth, the earlier he can adjust to it. I can't imagine it will be a happy moment for the boy when he inevitably finds out the truth as an adult and discovers he's been lied to all those years. His biological father isn't seeking custody or to deny him a relationship with his stepfather; he just wants to know his son, be a part of his life, and for the truth of his paternity to be formally acknowledged.
For laws to be respected and to have any relevance, they must keep pace with current realities. A law becomes obsolete and maladaptive when it is applied to circumstances that could not have existed at the time the law was enacted. To insist upon enforcing obsolete laws, even when they deny truth and perpetuate lies does not reflect the intentions of those who enacted the law with the information they had to work with at the time. Rather, it makes a mockery of the law.
Thoughts?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Don't They Have Anything Better to Do
When I think I've heard everything when it comes to certain politicians wanting to turn this country into a Nanny state, I hear something new to prove me wrong.
Lawmakers in the Florida Senate have proposed a measure that would ban fake bull testicles that dangle from the trailer hitches of some trucks and cars.
Republican Sen. Cary Bake called the adornments offensive and proposed the ban. Motorists would be fined $60 for displaying the novelty items, which are known by brand names like "Truck Nutz".
Are you kidding me? Are these legislators bored and have nothing more important to devote their attention to? Are we paying them to outlaw tacky trucks? Don't they think that the police have enough...and indeed, too many...laws to enforce already?
Personally, I've never seen a set of "Truck Nutz", But one of the female police officers I worked with had a set of fake boobs attached to the grille on the front of her personal car and I thought that was pretty funny. I'm guessing if she'd lived in Florida, these busybodies would want to ban those, too.
And though the truck owners who have these things hanging from their trucks are no doubt micro-penised weenies trying to compensate, it's a free country and if that's how they want to express themselves, they should have the right to do so.
Is it any wonder that our government is going down the tubes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
